LIMITATION OF PROOF OF COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF § 5 OF ART. 16, OF LAW 8.213/1991 AS A BASIS FOR JUDICIAL EVIDENCE TARIFFING

Abstract

Provisional Measure (MP) 871, later converted into Law 13.846/2019, introduced new rules for the production of evidence contained in § 5 of Art. 16 of Law 8.213/91. Although the constitutionality was discussed by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in the judgment of Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 6.096, there is a significant gap between the STF decision and its interpretation by the judiciary. This gap reveals the need for a deeper understanding of the implications of this procedural rule and its impact on legal practice and social protection in Brazil. This study aims to: (1) understand the judgment of ADI 6.096 and its binding effect; (2) assess the impact of the use of § 5 of Art. 16 of Law 8.213/91 as a rule for the production of evidence in the procedural sphere; (3) measure the impact of the rule of the National Forum of Federal Special Courts on free motivated conviction; and (4) understand the relationship between the interpretation given to ADI 6.096 and the UN Agenda 2030. Using an inductive methodology, the research was conducted through a bibliographic, jurisprudential, and documentary review. The results indicate that there is a significant discrepancy between the STF's decision in ADI 6.096 and the way lower courts are interpreting and applying this decision. This study significantly contributes to the literature by clarifying the divergences between the STF's decision and its practical application in the judiciary, aiming to strengthen the protection of social rights and ensure compliance with the UN Agenda 2030.